Within this new geopolitical environment, leaders in Canada, the U.S., the UK, Europe, and Australia, among others, face challenges of extraordinary scale and complexity, and confront some of society’s most critical issues both at home and abroad – the economy (economic insecurity, globalization, technology and trade), human rights (racism), environmental protection (global warming, pollution, global water crisis/drought), civil liberties, national security and terrorism and war (nuclear proliferation), corporate governance and tax avoidance, civil and criminal justice, global population growth, immigration and demographic change, cultural change, and entrenched poverty (malnutrition and hunger, food security, wealth and income inequality).[1]

CEB’s latest emerging risks survey indicated that the unpredictable political landscape in the US is now recognized as a top-five emerging risk among business leaders, ahead of cyber threats such as ransomware and Fed-related policy uncertainty. Beyond simply recognizing that there is a problem, corporations are acknowledging that they need to take action.

With the rising support for populist parties, complicated truths may become distorted into simplistic narratives,[3] and across Western society there is uncertainty, anxiety, and division. Many corporate leaders are of the opinion that a disaffected and divided society is a far greater threat to the success of business than weak economic growth or technological disruption.[4]

The next few years, and in particular 2017, will be a period of uncertainty for CEOs – business leaders will face daunting challenges amid turbulence and policy ambiguity world-wide.[5] The Board and C-suite will need clear and reliable information and advice about business, legal, regulatory, ethical, and political risks in order to drive strategic decisions and future outcomes, and minimize exposure to the organization and its stakeholders. The CEO and executive leadership team’s ability to mitigate risk will involve identifying, understanding, and prioritizing the diverse economic and non-economic threats to the corporation and its stakeholders,[6] especially those that present difficult geopolitical threats, such as authoritarian populism.[7]

There are no simple answers. However, it is important that corporate Boards, CEOs, and C-suite executives (including the General Counsel)[8] understand populism and its impact on business, as it is apparent that the consequences of the rise of populism will continue to play out and they are likely to be profound and consequential across Western society.[9]

Brexit, Trump, the global business environment … how is that going to play out? … coupled with the rise of far-right parties in Europe – the Freedom Party in Austria, The Sweden Democrats, and the National Front in France – has Canadian companies on high alert.

Contemporary populism[11] has taken a surprising twist of late, with rich country electorates in the U.S., the UK, and Europe opting for what appear to be the extreme alternatives to the status quo. Populist leaders are gaining support, votes and seats in eleven Western countries (with several potential flash points on the horizon this year in France, Italy, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands).[12] Commentators have noted that President-elect Trump is “far from unique”, fitting into “the wave of authoritarian populists whose support has swelled in many Western democracies”.[13]

The Economist[14] notes that the “Western [intellectuals and academics], snug in [their] echo-chamber, [have] done a dismal job of understanding what is going on, either dismissing populists as cranks or demonising them as racists”, observing that populism “comes in a wide variety of flavours, left-wing as well as right-wing and smiley-faced as well as snarling. But populists are united in pitting the people against the powerful” – for example, Spain’s left-wing Podemos condemns “la casta”, Britain’s right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP) demonizes the liberal elite, and Italy’s Beppe Grillo condemns “three destroyers—journalists, industrialists and politicians”.[15] President-elect Donald Trump was similarly able to exploit the support for populism in the United States[16] (although in the U.S. it appears that more Americans voted for the President-elect’s opponent than any other losing presidential candidate in U.S. history, outpacing Donald Trump by almost 2.9 million votes).[17] Populists are generally united in suspicion of traditional institutions, on the grounds that the institutions have been corrupted by the elites and/or their members have been left behind economically by globalization and technological change. However, they differ in many ways that make a populist front across political or national boundaries difficult.[18]

Stephen Fussell[19], an Executive Vice President of a multinational corporation with 74,000 employees in 150 countries, and other commentators, have fairly noted that you can’t read international headlines today without touching on the ups and downs of a volatile global economy (globalization, technology, and trade), terrorism, failing security measures, immigration and demographic changes, unemployment, or the growing disparity in both income and opportunity. Not surprisingly, many people have lost trust and confidence in institutions.[20] The International Monetary Fund has noted that too many people in Western societies feel left behind by globalization and technological change.[21] The broader perception that many people have been left behind in the era of automation and globalization is unquestionably rooted in fact: “big slices of society, in big chunks of the developed world, have seen real wages stagnate even as returns rapidly escalated in small pockets. Ultimately this creates both growing inequality in wealth and income and — perhaps more troubling — a sense that gaps in opportunity have widened”.[22] These issues and others have contributed to the rise of populism (Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential election win[23] and Brexit[24] being the most current examples), as many people feel they “don’t have control over their futures” and are afraid.[25]

Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe.

– Andrew Cumbers, Professor of Regional Political Economy, University of Glasgow[26]

What explains this phenomenon (i.e. strong leader/popular will, nationalism, traditional values, anti-establishment)?[27] There are two leading theories. Perhaps the most widely-held view of mass support for populism is the economic insecurity perspective. This theory emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.[28] The cultural backlash perspective suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change. Throughout advanced industrial society, massive cultural changes have been occurring that seem shocking to those with traditional values.[29]

And – as noted by the New York Times – “if you think globalization, immigration, trade and demographic change have contributed to displacement and political anger, wait until robots take away millions and millions of jobs, including those requiring the use of a well-trained brain”.[30] Until recently, technology has been an often overlooked—but significant—factor,[31] and going forward you can expect technology to change the economy even more than globalization.[32] Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that globalization and technology has “reinforced the shift away from lower-skilled jobs that require less education, to higher-skilled jobs that require college and advanced degrees,” and that “the jobs that globalization creates” – serving a global economy of billions of people – “are more likely to be filled by those who have secured the advantage of higher education.”[33]

In a world of zero-hour contracts, Uber, Deliveroo and the gig economy, access to decent work and a sustainable family income remains the main fault line between the winners and losers from globalisation.

– Andrew Cumbers, Professor of Regional Political Economy, University of Glasgow[34]

These global and domestic developments underscore the importance of societal and political issues to national and multi-national corporations. The U.S. presidential election and the Trump presidential transition, for example, present a confusing mix of arguably pro-business (i.e. corporate tax reform, infrastructure spending plan, etc.)[35] and anti-business themes – including rising populism, anti-globalization, protectionism (i.e. new trade barriers that may provoke global trade war and recession),[36] and wide-spread distrust of business. However, the U.S. presidential election and Brexit are only the most recent examples of populism and the pervasive and burgeoning importance of these issues to corporate leadership (CEO, C-suite executives, and the Board of Directors). Could it continue to happen elsewhere? There is a risk that the Trump and Brexit victories could boost the popularity of populist parties in Australia,[37] and particularly across Europe[38] – which has grappled with ongoing large-scale economic and political challenges in recent years, including anti-globalization and immigration, the European debt crisis, the migrant crisis, terrorism, the Turkey-EU refugee deal, and the Greece bailout deal.[39]

While supporters may hope that populist parties’ policies will bring about greater equality and growth for all, their rise creates major political, economic, social and business uncertainty.[40] Geopolitical shifts have made today’s world multipolar. As new national and global players bring different ideas about how to shape national systems and the international order, including business, the existing world order is increasingly perceived as becoming more fragile.[41] And corporations – by moving work around, optimizing tax footprints, “myopic short-termism”,[42] attempting to influence policy, etc. — are seen as part of the problem.[43]

It appears to some commentators that “any minute now” we “could be living in a very different world”,[44] negatively impacting the economy and business environment, and thereby potentially undermining an organization’s vision, strategy, values, stakeholders and bottom line.

The success of populists is the political expression of the enormous uncertainty that grips Western societies.

Under Trump the United States could grow into a trade pariah. …Protectionists always think the rules benefit the other guy, but tariffs could also rise on U.S. exports. Economic historians say a rising wave of tit-for-tat protectionism was a major contributor to the length and depth of the Great Depression.

In an increasingly globalized world, stewardship at the institutional level involves ensuring that organizational values, missions and strategies remain appropriate, and the business sustainable. Unequal distribution of wealth and economic opportunity, rising populism in the U.S and Europe, anti-globalization and protectionism,[46] social unrest, climate change,[47] etc., are among the acknowledged threats to the sustainability of businesses around the globe.[48]

We’ve seen [populism] manifested in increasingly extreme political platforms around the world and in recent decisions, by popular vote, such as Britain’s decision to exit the European Union. This is not something any business leader — from manager to CEO — should write off or discount.

The next few years will be a period of uncertainty for CEOs and their Boards. On a global basis, there will be formidable challenges amid instability and policy ambiguity.[50] The CEO and executive leadership team’s ability to mitigate risk will require courage: identifying, understanding, and prioritizing the diverse economic and non-economic threats to the corporation and its stakeholders,[51] especially those that present difficult geopolitical threats, in particular authoritarian populism.[52]

Today’s CEO and C-suite executive team – which excludes their General Counsel[53] from a chair at the leadership table at their peril – must integrate ‘business-in-the-economy’ (i.e. commercial realities of products, markets, and competitors), public policy and ‘business-in-society’ perspectives (i.e. societal and political realities, legislation, regulations, investigation, enforcement and litigation). Globalization and the rise of populism is compelling corporate leadership to master difficult and complex matters of local and international jurisdiction and political impact, including the challenges of more diverse and unpredictable business situations and industry trends. Failing to do so could result in substantial corporate damage, if an organization leads in such a restricted manner (i.e. a “business of business is business” outlook) it will likely be blind to outcomes they should be able to anticipate, since they are not positioned to understand and encompass the full dimension of the risk and opportunity in its’ corporate activity. Leadership acumen on business-in-society issues is imperative in addressing fundamental corporate issues, from business strategy to compliance to ethical standards to risk management.[54]

With the rise of populism across Western society, questions about performance, values and strategy should be front and center for executive leadership teams – and this includes meetings of the Board of Directors. Boards that don’t understand alternative points of view on corporate strategy (or bring them to the top management team for consideration) can never be fully confident that the management’s view of a jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) is the best one in the circumstances. In short, the outcome in such an environment may be unexpected and unpleasant.[55]

Business leaders should introduce explicit processes to make sure that populist political issues and emerging social forces are discussed at the highest levels as part of overall strategic planning. This means executive managers need to develop broad metrics or summaries that usefully describe the relevant issues, in much the same way that most firms analyse customer trends. The risk that stakeholders will mobilize around particular issues can be roughly estimated based on the known agendas and interests of these groups.[56] As part of this process, the CEO should set up (or at least consider) robust, cross-functional systems and processes to prevent, mitigate, and respond to those risks, always mindful of the stark challenges in diverse national jurisdictions where the company operates.[57] The leadership team should have a ‘big picture’ crisis management plan in place. With respect to potential government ‘populism’ issues, every company should be aware of how a crisis or disaster may impact their employees, customers, shareholders (if a public company), suppliers, the general public, and the company’s reputation[58] and value. If this type of crisis is not handled appropriately, the negative impact on the company, its reputation, and its value can be substantial.[59]

Given the complexity of the global and digital world, appropriate corporate strategy is becoming more difficult to ascertain, and of shorter duration than ever before. As such, Boards should consider whether it is appropriate for their company to “insist that strategy be on the agenda of each and every board meeting, so that the directors can be assured that they are investing their time in the most important function: helping to figure out and navigate the way ahead.”[60]

Boards of directors have always, in all cultures, represented the shareholders in publicly traded companies—validating financial results, protecting their assets, and counseling the CEO on strategy and on finding, then nurturing, the next generation of leaders.

– David Beatty, McKinsey Senior Advisor, Professor of Corporate Strategy and Governance (Rotman School of Management)[61]

As noted, CEO acumen on public policy and business-in-society issues is essential in addressing fundamental corporate issues and business strategy – and the Board of Directors has an important role in assuring that the CEO brings these perspectives to their job. The Board – depending on the size of the organization, jurisdiction(s) in which it operates, ownership structure, type of sector and industry, nature scope and complexity of operations, risk profile, and the level of regulation – generally needs to focus its oversight function by clearly defining the core operating objectives for the 10 or so highest priority risks and opportunities (that include business and society issues). The Board should tie both cash and equity compensation to the detailed record on those objectives (not just the general movement of the stock market). And it needs to establish robust Risk and Public Responsibility Committees for more complete reviews of this broader set of problems. The Board also needs to ensure that the executives reporting to the CEO (including the General Counsel) are also broad-gauged leaders who are not just expert in business but have deep understanding of politics, policy, ethics, societal trends, country risk, modern communication, and corporate citizenship.[62]

The hard news is that executive leadership teams, corporate boards, and in-house legal leaders will face some difficult choices in 2017 and the years ahead as they grapple to balance the organization’s strategic vision (mission, values, culture, and bottom line), with rising populism in at least 11 western countries, the challenges of society and other stakeholders, and the demands of increasingly active investors.[63] In setting strategy at a multinational (or even a mid to large national corporation), the CEO will have to navigate among different politico-economic systems that may range from state capitalism to government-centric industrial policy nations to market-centric mixed economies. This, in turn, involves sorting out different ideologies in those systems about how government should function: from the libertarian to the conservative to the populist to the liberal to the socialist. To assure legal compliance and mitigate legal hazard, the CEO and executive leadership must confront complex, conflicting, and uncertain issues, rules, enforcement practices, and legal cultures across myriad regional, national, and subnational jurisdictions. The CEO may also want to avoid operating to narrowly or shying away from broad debates about corporate behaviours – or they may face mounting criticism over their activities and greater risk of becoming embroiled in local or international political tensions – and consider voluntarily setting global ethical or corporate and social standards beyond what the law requires (note: or even simply national standards for corporations located in countries with numerous states or provinces with conflicting standards or legal requirements – for example, in countries with conflicting State or Provincial environmental standards).[64] Setting such standards involves nuanced balancing of the interests of the corporation and the rights of—and duties to—stakeholders. These ethical questions arise in the whole range of corporate activity from technology and manufacturing to marketing and sales to corporate practices to employee engagement.[65]

Ultimately, organizations and their leadership teams must define problems comprehensively and comprehensibly; to integrate different perspectives into solutions; and to forge agreement on a solution, and then implement it in a way that makes a difference to the organization and stakeholders.

True leadership in a complex, uncertain, and anxious world requires leaders to navigate with both a radar system and a compass. They must be receptive to signals that are constantly arriving from an ever-changing landscape, and they should be willing to make necessary adjustments; but they must never deviate from their true north, which is to say, a strong vision based on authentic values.

Brexit, Trump and Global Populism – Opportunity to rethink social compact / how relate to society?

Tom Monahan, CEO of CEB Global, offers a unique perspective having been involved in the Brexit affair – if only from the sidelines – suggesting that this period in time is “an opportunity” for corporations, their Boards, and their executive leadership teams to embrace and rethink their social compacts with employees and society as a whole, recommending five strategic steps to consider “that both work to shape healthier societies and boost short- and mid-term performance”:[67]

“Rethink how, and how often, you communicate about strategy: It’s clear from the Brexit debate that corporate leaders were late to the game in articulating how access to global markets, access to critical talent, and free movement of capital helped their businesses thrive (and how thriving businesses are the surest form of economic growth). While being an advocate for your corporate strategy helps shape public perspective, it also (importantly) drives employee engagement and productivity. Public messaging and internal frameworks need to focus on practical implications, like how ultimately a successful and responsible strategy, well executed, benefits the society the company serves, its team members, and its leadership.

Find ways to identify, engage, and develop non-traditional labour pools: There is a bad news/good news story unfolding in corporate life. To the bad, there are roughly 5.8 million [high skilled] unfilled jobs in the U.S. that corporate recruiters can’t hire for love or money. To the good (for the first time) we have real clarity about what skills are in demand at the micro-geographic level and we have the development resources to help people rapidly develop them. Accessing new labour pools both makes communities stronger and fills key roles more quickly.

Measure and rapidly adapt the effectiveness of your training and development efforts: No company can promise lifetime employment, but we can all promise lifetime employability by focusing training regimes on the highest-value actions and ensuring that every assignment builds new capabilities.

Re-examine how you engage with, and listen to, your core markets: The CEB team that was monitoring Brexit for [its] members this spring [indicate they] often felt ignored – their data suggested that Brexit was a real possibility, but … could not interest [their] clients in scenario planning. If Brexit in particular, or the new populism in general is a surprise, it is time to rethink how you engage and listen to consumer markets and to get inside of the mind of the business buyer. A Trump victory and a “leave” vote are reminders that intensity of commitment are as important – if not more important — than simple preference, and that social media is far more important than endorsement by perceived elites.

Adapt your employee value proposition to the current needs of key communities: You can’t be all things to all people, but you can focus on the key communities that will affect your business and build strong value propositions that show how you will help them.”

Companies that treat social issues as either irritating distractions or simply unjustified vehicles for attack on business are turning a blind eye to impending forces that have the potential fundamentally to alter their strategic future.

In line with CEO Tom Monahan, the International Monetary Fund has stated that there is a needed role for business – as leaders, as employers, and as innovators – because “too many people feel left behind, questioning whether the economy is working for them”, and that as a result “in some of the advanced economies in particular, a populist sentiment is growing that threatens to shift the needle against economic openness”.[69] Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has acknowledged that “we need to find a way to change the game so it works for everyone”.[70]

From a business and political leadership perspective, what duty is there for the people globalization and technology has left behind?[71] Some say none. Others, like Jack Markell, the Governor of Delaware, has stated that politicians should work together with business to build an economy that distributes its benefits more broadly.[72] According to the International Monetary Fund, business faces a defining moment, and business leaders have a decision to make as to whether to take decisive action to make globalization work for everyone.[73] Some companies and business organizations have taken strong public stances on these and similar issues,[74] but in general, high-level, concerted corporate leadership is more notable by its absence, which is of course a strategic decision in itself. However, in determining an appropriate corporate strategy, corporate leadership should consider that failure to address or assist “those on the losing end of globalization” may “end badly politically” – as the ascendant success of “anti-establishment” populist leaders and parties in the U.S., the UK, and at least 11 Western countries appear to attest:[75]

“Business leaders should not fear their greater advocacy of the contract between business and society. … More than two centuries ago, Rousseau’s social contract helped to seed the idea among political leaders that they must serve the public good, lest their own legitimacy be threatened. The CEOs of today’s big corporations should take the opportunity to restate and reinforce their own social contracts in order to help secure, for the long term, the invested billions of their shareholders.”[76]

Similarly, the World Economic Forum – which surveyed 750 business, government and academic leaders – has identified economic inequality (“rising income and wealth disparity”), technology, and political polarization as potentially the biggest drivers in global affairs, and this month stated that “long term thinking” in the reform of market capitalism will be needed to combat the growing appeal of populist political movements around the world.[77] The World Economic Forum has noted that stronger economic growth alone is not enough to fix the issues reflected in the rise of populism, stating:[78]

“WEF’s global risks report … argues that a “growing mood of anti-establishment populism” means market capitalism must now be reformed, and several panels will examine how this could happen. One panel will consider the plight of the “squeezed and angry” middle classes, with contributions from International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde and hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio.

Davos will also examine whether it’s time to give all citizens a [universal] basic income,[79] to cushion them from the impact of technological change.

“Machines, the argument goes, can take the jobs, but should not take the incomes: the job uncertainty that engulfs large swaths of society should be matched by a welfare policy that protects the masses, not only ‘the poor’,” said World Bank senior economist Ugo Gentilini. “Hence, basic income grants emerge as a straightforward option for the digital era – one seemingly backed by Silicon Valley and trade unions alike.”

The backlash against globalization is real and mounting in advanced economies. But it can be managed through policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization continue, that mitigates collateral damage to those who lose out and that makes losers more likely to eventually join the ranks of the winners.

– Nouriel Roubini, Political Left and Right upended by Globalization Politics[80]

If these economic challenges are to be addressed and overcome – however that may look – it will require governments across Western society and the private sector to work together in tandem: alongside stronger policies, the role of business would be key – leading, employing, innovating.[81]

Business leaders have much to offer: playing to their strengths (real solutions) and highlighting and addressing the weaknesses of particular populist policies (damaging and counter-productive solutions, i.e. protectionist global trade war). To be successful, business leaders will have to: (a) recognize people’s fears and anger as legitimate; (b) engage with the concerns that actually fuel anti-business sentiment and populism, and (c) construct a conversational leadership solution(s) that can work, providing inspiration and constructive plans for building a better future.[82]

However, decisive action would be required to make globalization work for everyone. This will require pulling on all policy levers—monetary, fiscal, structural—to support demand, boost productivity, and reinvigorate trade. Investing in social safety nets,[83] education, and retraining[84] those affected by globalization and technological change are also key. Policymakers face a major challenge—and they cannot do it alone.[85]

For example, Canada and the U.S. have a significant number of high-skilled jobs that are available but cannot be filled, because of a lack of people with the right skills.[86] To fill these jobs, workers must retrain and the next generation must be given the opportunity to be educated in the required modern skills. For this to happen, governments and business will need to work in partnership to make long-term commitments to invest in their citizens and their workforce.[87] Business leaders will need to be part of this type of “education and training” solution,[88] and in the U.S. this was recently exemplified by a “coalition of Fortune 500 CEOs [technology, airlines, banks, hotel chains, manufacturers, entertainment companies], governors, educators, and non-profit leaders” who stepped up to lobby the Federal government to fund computer science education and training to fill 500,000 U.S. jobs currently available – but unfilled – high-skilled and high-paying software and computing jobs across the U.S. and identified as a “trillion-dollar opportunity”: [89]

“This decade computing occupations have become the single largest sector of new wages in the U.S. This isn’t just about future jobs. It’s about more than 500,000 currently open jobs. These are among the best-paying jobs in the country. And these job openings are growing almost twice as fast as all the other jobs in the country. Even before automation changes the picture, computing jobs already outpace manufacturing jobs. …

This is a trillion-dollar opportunity: The opportunity is larger than the 500,000 open jobs in computing. Each time you fill a high-paying computing job, you create 5 more local jobs in the neighborhood. When you factor in the growth in computing jobs, you have an opportunity to add over a trillion dollars to the economy over the next decade. ..

With 500,000 open jobs across the country, what’s the problem? The problem is in education. Not enough students learn the skills to fill these jobs.

The solution lies in education and re-training: Every school should offer computer science. The Trump 100-day plan already recognizes this by calling for expanding career and technical education. Here are three specific things the Trump administration can do to make the 100-day goal concrete:

1) Provide federal funding for K-12 schools to teach computer science.Every school should teach computer science. President Obama suggested that this is a $4B problem. As a nonprofit that has been addressing this problem at a national scale for years, we disagree. A simple analysis shows the true cost is closer to $400M, as a one-time expense that could be spread over 4 years.

2) Provide incentives to universities to prepare graduates for our workforce needs.As tuition and student debt skyrocket, consider rewarding colleges that adapt their curriculum and teaching capacity to fit today’s workplace needs. A computer science degree, even from a lesser college, is worth much more than any other college degree. [4] Students with these degrees will repay their tuition loans faster, and rarely default. Consider slashing their interest rates.

3) Expand re-training programs for adults.Create programs to retrain adults in computing skills to put the underemployed back to work. Technology boot-camps for adults are already the fastest-growing sector of private education, and they’re needed in more regions, urban and rural.

… Despite the divisions in America, we can find common ground on issues like this, that everybody agrees on. The American Dream is broken. This popular, trillion-dollar opportunity is one of the best ways to fix it.”

A rising tide does not lift all boats if too many workers have no boat — or no idea how to get one. Unless we are willing to invest in current and future workers (through anti-poverty programs, improved K-12 education, worker training, apprenticeships, life-long learning programs, etc.), cuts to individuals’ top marginal tax rate, and/or corporate tax reform, won’t spread prosperity.

Is this an opportunity “to rethink how organizations operate, how they govern, how they lead, and how they relate to society?”[91] This issue is just one of the questions that may be reviewed and discussed in boardrooms and in middle and upper management in large companies over the next few years.

The way that you advance … is to engage. Personally, I’ve never found being on the sideline a successful place to be. The way that you influence these issues is to be in the arena. So whether it’s in this country, or the European Union, or in China or South America, we engage. And we engage when we agree and we engage when we disagree. I think it’s very important to do that because you don’t change things by just yelling. You change things by showing everyone why your way is the best. In many ways, it’s a debate of ideas.

In virtually every country across the world, a broad range of political, business and ethical issues directly and immediately shape what companies can and cannot do. They present an ever-changing, ever-expanding and often inconsistent array of laws, regulations, rules, demands, and “tweets”, and they may shift dramatically as the political pendulum swings back and forth in different nations.[93]

The problem is some of the populism on both the far left and the far right, it can make a Tweet but not make a policy. And, you know, when you are dealing with issues that are as important and serious as this, I understand why people search for simple solutions.

– Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister (1997-2007)

Whether it is due to a “tweet” by President-elect Trump[94] or some other source – and whether it is true, false or in between – companies will suffer a negative reputational and financial impact if they don’t apply an effective reputation risk lens to their business in this age of social media. That means having appropriate risk, crisis and stakeholder management programs in place well in advance of a reputational issue, as such issues can have both tangible and intangible impacts exacerbated and fueled by the resulting adverse behaviours of key stakeholders.[95] The positive, is that a strong long term strategic plan – based on company vision and values and facts/evidence, and most importantly diplomacy – has the potential to positively “impact the perceptions and behaviors of everyone they care about: investors, employees, customers, potential customers and government officials. Investors know this and are watching for where and how the impact will be felt financially”.[96]

Some CEOs are nervous at the prospect of a 6 a.m. tweet from President-elect Donald Trump, accusing their company of not doing enough to keep jobs in the U.S. … “Companies and executives need to have a Twitter strategy” to deal with any tweets from Trump about their firms.

In this environment, CEOs, business executives, and General Counsel must be “strategic cross-disciplinary” leaders,[98] with an eye on the business, political, legal and government regulation landscape to avoid any surprises. It is now critical to utilize the full C-suite business and legal acumen to propel the organization forward, make risk-aware decisions, and build strategies for success. As part of this process, the CEO should set up (or at least consider) robust, cross-functional systems and processes to prevent, mitigate, and respond to those risks, always mindful of the stark challenges in diverse national jurisdictions where the company operates.[99] The leadership team should have a crisis management plan in place.

Although the ‘structure’ to coordinate a response to a crisis should already be in place for the company (clear roles and responsibilities), the actual ‘strategy’ to be employed and implemented will depend upon the actual crisis that ultimately arises. The CEOs role is to set the strategy and where appropriate to focus on communicating the company’s position. With respect to potential government ‘populism’ issues, every company should be aware of how a crisis or disaster may impact their employees, customers, shareholders (if a public company), suppliers, the general public, and the company’s reputation and value. If this type of crisis is not handled appropriately, the negative impact on the company, its brand / reputation,[101] and its value can be substantial.[102]

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.

– Winston Churchill

Given the way President-elect Trump has singled out some companies for criticism, and the effect that has had on those companies’ stock prices, how should companies prepare to respond if they get called out? Some recent examples of this include Carrier Corp., Boeing, Rexnord, FedEx, General Motors, Toyota, Ford Motor and Lockheed Martin Corp. – national and multinational companies “are facing a situation where they have to consider the political consequences” of all their decisions:[103]

“Trump has shown a remarkable willingness to meddle in companies’ internal affairs and boost certain businesses over others.”

Trump railed against NAFTA and other trade agreements … but a study from Indiana’s Ball State University estimates 88% of lost American factory jobs disappeared because of automation, not trade agreements.

The key characteristic of a crisis is that it cannot be controlled, only managed, and then only if done with honesty and integrity. The facts will come out at some point whether you want them to or not – always get ahead of the story, and frame it fairly and appropriately in your own terms. Communication and trust[105] are two main ingredients for a successful relationship. “Ultimately if there is a problem that needs fixing, people will judge you more on what you did about the situation than what the situation originally was. And if you deal with an issue well, then ultimately you get credit for that”.[106]

Not all decisions need to be trade-offs, however.

Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in ‘vote of confidence’ in Trump…. This does make a heck of a lot of sense for business reasons. Political favor is an advantageous byproduct,” says Bernard Swiecki, senior automotive analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan.

Many challenges that leaders in business face involve questions of values. In a business environment where reputational threats lurk around every corner, a strong culture of leadership, ethics, and compliance is the foundation of a robust organization. Don’t lose sight of your core values, and why you are doing your work.

Trump’s trade plan is a looming disaster … if Trump follows through on [declaring a trade war on the world], it won’t be long before he and his supporters regret it.

Climate change is generally considered by the scientific community as one of the most impactful risks the world is currently facing.[109] Extreme weather events, large natural disasters and failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to climate change are listed in the 2017 Global Risks Report as the most prominent global risks. The report highlights that even though the risk will play out over the long term, actions have to be immediate and long-lasting to have any hope of reversing the trajectory of climate change. The report notes that international cooperation is fundamental to address challenges posed by such risk, from managing “global commons” such as oceans and our atmosphere to enacting international accords such as the Paris Agreement and the progress made last year at the UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.[110]

Denial of the broad scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of global warming could become a guiding principle of Donald Trump’s presidential administration…. Indeed, Trump’s election is a triumph of climate denial, and will elevate him to the top of a Republican Party where prominent elected officials have publicly rejected the climate consensus…. Trump’s victory sends a message that failing to embrace climate science still isn’t disqualifying for a presidential candidate, even as scientists warn that the devastating consequences of global warming are under way and expected to intensify in the years ahead.

The question for companies who have incorporated social responsibility into their business model and/or made public commitments to corporate social responsibility[112] – including sustainability and environmental protection, human rights, gender equality for women, the LGBT community, and appropriate levels of immigration and inclusion[113] – how will or should companies respond to the new political environment in the countries in which they operate? That’s the strategy question. The tactical questions then come thick and fast afterwards:[114]

“For example, if the Paris Agreement on climate change is kiboshed by a Trump administration, what does that mean for company climate targets and advocacy?

If political ideology leads to more gas fracking, more coal and a short term approach to “cheaper” energy, what does that mean for your policies and practices around renewables?

If political appointees cancel laws that protect human rights, or gut institutions designed to defend them, how do you respond as a company?”

Governments can affect our ability to do what we do …in positive ways and … not so positive ways. What we do is focus on the policies. Some of our key areas of focus are on privacy and security, education. They’re on advocating for human rights for everyone, and expanding the definition of human rights. They’re on the environment and really combating climate change, something we do by running our business on 100 percent renewable energy.

If sustainability and respect for human rights is “in the DNA” of a particular national or multinational company, some commentators suggest that the decision, as a leadership team of executives deciding how the company behaves going forward, may be relatively straight forward, although with potential ramifications.[116] Unfortunately, nothing in business is simple, but it may be problematic for an organization to shift or reject a company’s established, recognized and respected core values in a particular political environment – province, state, or country – due to perceived political or populism pressure, especially if its customers and stakeholders in its core jurisdiction(s) “like and support” pro-environmental and other progressive policies and want them to continue. This is particularly true, for example, in a U.S. state like California, where the government and its citizens generally support environmental issues, the state has taken on an international role, and its economy is powered by a high-tech industry and prominent research institutions that make it well placed to continue to lead on energy and climate:[117]

“[Governor] Brown has spearheaded the Under 2 MOU initiative,[118] backed by a coalition of state, local and regional governments in 33 countries — more than 160 jurisdictions with a total population of more than 1 billion — that have agreed to deep emissions cuts to try to keep global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.”

[Governor] Brown called Mr. Trump’s election a setback for the climate movement, but predicted that it would be fleeting. ‘In a paradoxical way, it could speed up the efforts of leaders in the world to take climate change seriously,’ he said. ‘The shock of official congressional and presidential denial will reverberate through the world’.

Alternatively, if a company is not enamoured with environmentalism and global warming, and it is not a core value, its executive leadership may decide to review its corporate strategy as to whether to capitalize on the potential new political ‘climate’ at the U.S. federal level and its possible impact nationally and globally. A corporate position that may possibly be addressed for this type of agenda (assuming most would not adopt Donald Trump’s “hoax” position),[120] is in line with the position adopted by Ryan Zinke, President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the Interior Department: “Man has had an influence on climate … where there’s debate is what that influence is and what we can do about it”.[121] For example, certain companies within the fossil-fuel industry may feel emboldened to undermine ‘green’ energy and climate initiatives in California, the EU, or countries such as Canada, if determined to be appropriate legally and important to protect its business vision, stakeholders and bottom line.[122] However, this decision could also be problematic for such a hypothetical company as – using California as the example – this state is a “leader in environmental advocacy” and, as a state strongly committed to moving forward on their climate leadership, unlikely to deviate because of a federal presidential election in which the president-elect lost the popular vote by a margin of almost 2.9 million votes (48.2% to 46.1%).[123] And, California has the weight to get into the ring: it is one of the 10 largest economies in the world, with a gross domestic product of approximately $2.5 trillion.[124]

If the other [U.S.] states pursue no-climate-change policies, and we [California] continue to go it on our own with our climate change policies, then we would be at a competitive disadvantage for either relocating companies or growing companies here, particularly manufacturing factories.

Something many Boards will likely keep in mind in discussing this issue at the executive level, is that more than 600 businesses and investors recently signed and released a letter urging president-elect Donald Trump to fight climate change – a “move that coincides with the start of the Senate hearings to confirm his cabinet nominees, who are poised to gut existing climate policies”. The letter reflects the engagement and leadership of business on behalf of their organizations and their key stakeholders that climate change is real and poses a threat to not only citizens nationally and internationally, but their own corporate financial health:[126]

“While environmental groups are gearing up for an intense fight with the new government, evidence continues to emerge that points to the substantial business risks posed by rising global temperatures, such as dwindling supplies of raw materials and water.

Extreme heat, for example, isbad for the economy, causing crop failure and reduced worker productivity, according to a new study from Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley.

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, a non-profit group that sets standards for corporate sustainability disclosures to investors and is chaired by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, estimates that significant climate risks – such as severe weather events – exist for most of the companies it tracks, which represent $27.5tn, or 93%, of US stocks as measured by market value.

There is also evidence that companies that embrace sustainability actually perform better financially than those that do not. A 2014 study by the non-profit CDP, which provides environmental data and climate risk analysis, found that corporations that actively manage and plan for climate change achieved an 18% higher return on investment than companies that weren’t planning for climate change, and 67% higher than companies that refused to disclose their emissions.

Investors are increasingly seeing opportunities to address climate change. Nearly two dozen of the world’s most successful business leaders, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists such as Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Virgin’s Richard Branson and Alibaba founder Jack Ma, plan to invest as much as$1bn in a fund called Breakthrough Energy Ventures, led by Bill Gates, that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by financing clean energy technology.”

This is sure to be an important issue that will be debated in many boardrooms. The decision of each particular organization will likely be based on its leadership, its core values, its vision, and its stakeholders.

If you’re worried about climate change, it’s scary to think that the incoming Trump administration could reverse gains made in recent years. … departing Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz … cited a range of economic and technological factors that will sustain the long-term move toward reduced carbon emissions, regardless of the policies adopted by Donald Trump, who has expressed skepticism about climate science and government efforts to cut emissions.

Addressing strategic planning and decision making, one can expect a crowded Board docket as executive teams weigh matters such as: leadership and a public voice, ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) positions, public policy, government and populism and societal issues, globalization and trade, regulations and compliance, international supply chains, national and international markets, technology and efficiency, employees and compensation, training and education, optimizing cost and tax efficiency against reputational risk from moving operations, lowering costs and prices at the expense of jobs and wage growth, etc.[128]

The question is whether corporate leaders will focus on short-term gains or take the long view, or something in between: finding a balance between long-term and short-term initiatives may be key to managing a large business.[129] Many of the world’s challenges cannot be addressed with a quarterly mindset.[130]

As noted, this is potentially an opportunity, “a moment to rethink how organizations operate, how they govern, how they lead, and how they relate to society.”[131]

Conclusion

An accomplished CEO and leadership team can achieve more than simply avoiding catastrophe, they can also create value and benefits in the corporation, in the marketplace, and in the broader national and global community. This ultimately creates the basic trust which is the foundation for corporate durability and sustainability, and which endures beyond changes in governments.[132]

Populism’s belief that the people are always right is bad news for two elements of liberal democracy: the rights of minorities and the rule of law.

Leadership matters.[134] In nearly every aspect of public and private life, the ability to inspire others to work towards positive and ethical change is critical to the success of organizations, businesses, political and governmental institutions, and communities. People want to believe in the ability of their leaders to guide change and achieve success. The same is true for business leaders whether in private organizations, government service, work with non-profit entities, or other areas where business leaders and legal leaders use their skills and knowledge.

In this new political era – whether in the U.S. (presidential election), the UK (Brexit), or elsewhere in the Western world – corporate leaders must lead. Reach out and build trust – “trust, not blame, is the grease that moves us to action”. Democracy is not a spectator sport. If there is going to be a healthy and honest counter-balance of policy and discussion from the private sector, then CEOs like Apple’s Tim Cook and others must be willing to take a firm stance publicly. Leaders participate.[135] For example, Telstra chairman John Mullen has called for a greater unity of voice from the business community in the face of growing populism, and Virgin chairman and Westpac director Elizabeth Bryan has noted that “times have changed and businesses need to be part of the public debate”.[136] In Australia, then Business Council of Australia president Catherine Livingston has noted that “populist anti-business sentiment” will have “devastating” consequences, and that business leaders must be part of the policy debate as “the notion that we can have a vibrant economy, driving higher wages and better living standards, without healthy and globally competitive private enterprise is very troubling”.[137] Business issues that may be beneficial to society cannot “be taken for granted. Its benefits have to be better articulated to the public, the risks of abandoning it more clearly spelled out”. Business leaders “shouldn’t be surprised” that “those who argue against free trade or more protectionism[138] are out there in that vacuum that [silent business and legal[139] leaders] created”.[140] No one will win a trade war.[141]

You can’t have a United States if you are telling some folks that they can’t get on the train. There is a cracking point where a society collapses.

– Bruce Springsteen

As the Boston Globe notes, “Robert Frost wrote the poem ‘Mending Wall’ on the eve of World War I — a brutal era that would end with a blood-soaked Europe eventually mending its own walls. Like then, the theme of divisiveness once again hangs thick in the air”:[142]

“The poem’s oft-repeated refrain “good fences make good neighbors” implies a deeply felt sense of trust that each side of the fence will play by the rules and work together to maintain order. …

Instead, we’re witnessing something altogether different. The dark undertow of our current international wave of populism is tearing apart all that has been loosely stitched together, whether it be culture, class, or country. …

The difficulty with the politics of divisiveness is that it creates a chain reaction: division begets more division. Consider the Brexit. No sooner had the United Kingdom voted removing itself from the European Union, than Scotland began floating secession again. Northern Ireland followed. In London, thousands signed a petition to secede from the United Kingdom. The problem … is that deeper and deeper subdivisions only make the act of leadership that much more challenging. Just look at the United Kingdom, where they are struggling to reconcile their widespread desire to be separate with the economic need to be part of a common market.”

As noted by multinational executive Stephen Fussell, the “rise of populism tells us that employees are unhappy with aspects of government and markets. That uneasiness inevitably impacts their work. It also means that they will be asking for more from [their corporate employers], and for different things. They will increasingly look to the workplace as a place for stability, security and transparency. By rising up to help meet some of these basic, intrinsic human needs, business leaders lay a platform from which people can build mastery, independence, and self-actualization. And this, in turn, enables them to live up to their fullest potential. That’s not only good for them, but according to many leaders, it’s good for business”.[143]

Trust starts with trustworthy leadership. It must be built into the corporate culture.

– Barbara Brooks Kimmel

As a leader, good communication is critical for the mission and vision of what you are trying to accomplish, but as well – to motivate, inspire and manage relationships to move people in the desired direction.[144] Trust is the essential element in order to deliver extraordinary results in an enduring way. If someone you’re trying to influence doesn’t trust you, you’re not going to get very far; in fact, you might even elicit suspicion because you come across as manipulative. A warm, trustworthy person who is also strong elicits admiration, but only after you’ve established trust does your strength become a gift rather than a threat.[145]

Eric Sigurdson

Endnotes:

[1] Eric Sigurdson, Lawyers and Leadership: effective and ethical judgement and decision-making required to address societal and professional challenges, Sigurdson Post, September 5, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[3] Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017. [Originally published in The Conversation.com: Andrew Cumbers, New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit, and alt.right, The Conversation, January 12, 2017] – “populist ‘outsiders’ with simplistic yet ultimately flawed political and economic narratives”. Also see: Editorial Board, The Patriotic Response to Populism, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Christopher Alessi, Siemens warns wave of populism threatens business, Market Watch, November 10, 2016.

“Populism is dangerous because it demands simplistic solutions to complicated problems — and when its solutions fail, the anger is apt to mount.”

[4] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; Editorial Board, The Patriotic Response to Populism, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016; Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017. [Originally published in The Conversation.com: Andrew Cumbers, New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit, and alt.right, The Conversation, January 12, 2017]:

“If 2016 brought Brexit, Donald Trump and a backlash against cosmopolitan visions of globalisation and society, the great fear for 2017 is further shocks from right-wing populists like Geert Wilders in Holland and Marine Le Pen in France.

A new mood of intolerance, xenophobia and protectionist economics seems to be in the air.

In a world of zero-hour contracts, Uber, Deliveroo and the gig economy, access to decent work and a sustainable family income remains the main fault line between the winners and losers from globalisation.

Drill into the voter data behind Brexit and Trump and they have much to do with economically marginalised voters in old industrial areas, from South Wales to Nord-Pas-de-Calais, from Tyneside to Ohio and Michigan.

[5] Joann S. Lumblin and John Simons, One Thing is Certain: 2017 Will be a Year of Uncertainty for CEOs, Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2016; Ari Kaplan, Reinventing Professionals: Where is the legal industry headed in 2017?, ABA Journal, December 23, 2016. (citing Tony Gomes, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Legal Compliance Officer, Citrix Systems).

[6] Company stakeholders: A stakeholder is a party that has an interest in a company, and can either affect or be affected by the business. The primary stakeholders in a typical corporation are its investors, employees and customers. However, the modern theory of the idea goes beyond this original notion to include additional stakeholders such as a community, government or trade association. [Investopedia.com and Wikipedia]

Primary Stakeholders – usually internal stakeholders, are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees).

Secondary Stakeholders – usually external stakeholders, are those who – although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business – are affected by or can affect its actions (for example the general public, government, communities, activist groups, business support groups, and the media).

[7] Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016. Also see, for example: Cas Muddle, The Trump phenomenon and the European populist radical right, Washington Post, August 26, 2015; Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016; Katharine Murphy, Australia in 2016: the year leaders flailed as populism sailed, The Guardian (Australia), December 27, 2016; Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016:

“Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. They control governments in Hungary and Poland, and will soon take power in America. And they’re organizing across borders: Austria’s Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has signed an agreement with Russia’s ruling party — and met with Donald Trump’s choice for national security adviser.”

[9] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; ‘The risk is very high, and we need to pay very close attention to what’s happening in Europe’, Business Insider, December 30, 2016. For example, also see: overviews of the literature in Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Rightwing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994; Piero Ignazi, Extreme right parties in Western Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral, Eds., Right-Wing Populism in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013; Carlos de la Torre, Ed., The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press, 2015; Matt Golder, ‘Far Right Parties in Europe’, Annual Review of Political Science 19:477-97, 2016; Thomas Piketty, Capital, Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press, 2014; Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Post modernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Classic works on the rise of populism, The Economist, December 3, 2016; Katharine Murphy, Australia in 2016: the year leaders flailed as populism sailed, The Guardian (Australia), December 27, 2016.

[10] Anna Sharratt, Top Five Worries of Mid-Sized Companies for 2017, Globe and Mail, December 28, 2016.

“Populists may be militarists, pacifists, admirers of Che Guevara or of Ayn Rand; they may be tree-hugging pipeline opponents or drill-baby-drill climate-change deniers. What makes them all “populists”, and does the word actually mean anything? …

As Benjamin Moffitt explains in his book “The Global Rise of Populism”, a conference at the London School of Economics in 1967 agreed that the term, while useful, was too mushy to be tied down to a single description. Some scholars linked it to frustration over declines in status or welfare, some to nationalist nostalgia. Others saw it as more of a political strategy in which a charismatic leader appeals to the masses while sweeping aside institutions (though not all populist movements have such a leader). Despite its fuzziness, the term’s use has grown.

In 2004 Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, offered a definition that has become increasingly influential. In his view populism is a “thin ideology”, one that merely sets up a framework: that of a pure people versus a corrupt elite. (He contrasts it with pluralism, which accepts the legitimacy of many different groups.) This thin ideology can be attached to all sorts of “thick” ideologies with more moving parts, such as socialism, nationalism, anti-imperialism or racism, in order to explain the world and justify specific agendas. …

But other scholars feel that the thin-ideology definition fails to capture some dimensions. Jan-Werner Müller, a political scientist at Princeton University, thinks populists are defined by their claim that they alone represent the people, and that all others are illegitimate. And there are important distinctions within the category, such as that between inclusive and exclusive varieties. Exclusive populism focuses on shutting out stigmatised groups (refugees, Roma), and is more common in Europe. Inclusive populism demands that politics be opened up to stigmatised groups (the poor, minorities), and is more common in Latin America. Mr. Mudde argues that while most writers deplore populism, its upside lies in forcing elites to discuss issues they prefer to ignore. But populism’s belief that the people are always right is bad news for two elements of liberal democracy: the rights of minorities and the rule of law.”

[12] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; Hendrik Brakel, Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017; Elaine Ganley, Marine Le Pen’s new, less racist, vision for France has her ahead in the polls: Le Pen sees ‘grand return’ of nationalism and a new France, Toronto Star, January 12, 2017; 5 Minutes for Business: Rise of the Trumps – Why Populism is all the Rage, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Burnaby Board of Trade, February 9, 2016; Barclays: ‘Markets may have taken the wrong lessons from Donald Trump and Brexit’, Business Insider, January 13, 2017:

“Fringe parties gaining ground pose a risk by hobbling the ability of governments to work effectively in countries that typically have coalition governments, such as Germany and the Netherlands. This “impairs the ability of the European Council to respond decisively to EU political crises as it did in 2011-12” and could further undermine confidence in the 27-nation bloc. …

Advances for populist parties also pose a risk due to their ability to influence the debate on either the left or right. UKIP is a prime example and Barclays bank says that the party “arguably caused Brexit as the UK’s Conservative Party was forced to hold a referendum on EU membership due to the indirect electoral threat from UKIP.”

[13] Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016. Also see, for example: Cas Muddle, The Trump phenomenon and the European populist radical right, Washington Post, August 26, 2015; Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016:

“Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. They control governments in Hungary and Poland, and will soon take power in America. And they’re organizing across borders: Austria’s Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has signed an agreement with Russia’s ruling party — and met with Donald Trump’s choice for national security adviser.”

[14]A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016.

[15]A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016.

“This election year, appealing to populism, while stoking xenophobia and bigotry, proved an effective campaign strategy for Trump. Fanning these flames has already led to numerous racist and anti-Semitic hate crimes — including vandalism, verbal, and physical assault.

So a final thing to watch out for is how Trump responds to ongoing economic discontent. If Trump’s economic policies fail ordinary Americans, either because his populist initiatives are stymied by Republican budget hawks or because his overall agenda is regressive, he may double down on exploiting the fears and anxieties of his supporters.

Far beyond economics, this strategy places social cohesion, public safety, and civil liberties at risk.”

[18]A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[19] Stephen Fussell heads HR at Abbott, a global healthcare company with 74,000 employees in 150 countries. Mr. Stephen R. Fussell, has been Executive Vice President of Human Resources at Abbott Australasia Pty. Ltd. since February 2013. Mr. Fussell has been an Executive Vice President of Human Resources at Abbott Laboratories since February 2013. He served as Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. since April 2005. He joined Abbott Laboratories on December 9, 1996, as Divisional Vice President of Compensation and Benefits until 1999 and served as its Vice President of Compensation and Development from 1999 to 2005. Prior to Abbott, Mr. Fussell served as Vice President of Total Compensation and Workforce Information of Nestlé USA in Glendale, Calif. He served human resources leadership positions at Shell. He serves as is Chairman of the Board and President of the Clara Abbott Foundation and a board member of Abbott Fund. He is an author and speaker on a wide variety of subjects and served as a Guest Lecturer at Cornell and other universities. In 2010, he was named to the HR Honor Roll by Human Resources Executive magazine. Mr. Fussell has a Bachelor’s Degree in Management and Administration from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. [bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=247547&privcapId=247483]

[20] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017; Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016; Jim Norman, Americans’ Confidence in Institutions Stays Low, Gallup.com, June 13, 2016; Clare Malone, Americans Don’t Trust Their Institutions Anymore, FiveThirtyEight, November 16, 2016; Jake Johnson, As Millions of Workers Face Pension Cuts Thanks to Wall Street Greed, Executive Benefits Remain Lavish, Common Dreams.org, April 29, 2016; Matt Taibbi, Looting the Pension Funds, Rolling Stone, September 26, 2013; M.B., Busted Trust: Faith in world leaders, Economist, January 23, 2012; James Crisp, Juncker admits Europeans have lost faith in the EU, EurActiv.com, April 19, 2016; Nathaniel Persily and Jon Cohen, Americans are losing faith in democracy – and in each other, Washington Post, October 14, 2016; Richard Edelman, A crisis of trust: A warning to both business and government, Economist, The World In.com, 2016.

[21] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; A perfectly timed book on populism: John Judis has written a powerful account of the forces shaking Europe and America, The Economist, December 3, 2016. See, John Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. Also see: Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016:

“The backlash against globalization is real and mounting in advanced economies. But it can be managed through policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization continue, that mitigates collateral damage to those who lose out and that makes losers more likely to eventually join the ranks of the winners.”

[22] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017; Also see, Annie Lowrey, 2016: A Year Defined by America’s Diverging Economies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[23] Victor Li, The top legal stories of 2016: Do you have others?, ABA Journal, December 23, 2016:

The Brexit vote: “The United Kingdom’s complicated history with the European Union took an unpredictable turn in June. UK voters narrowly approved a referendum to leave the EU, ending over 40 years of membership in the multinational union (the UK joined the EU’s predecessor entity, the European Economic Community, in 1973).

The vote exposed deep divisions between the UK constituent countries. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain while England (with the glaring exception of London) and Wales voted to leave. Scotland governmental officials have begun the process for preparing for a second referendum for independence from the UK so that it may remain in the EU. As for Northern Ireland, the Brexit raised fears that the near 20-year cease-fire that came about after the 1997 Good Friday Accords could be in jeopardy.

The vote also brought an end to the premiership of [Prime Minister] David Cameron, who had favored remaining in the EU. His successor, Theresa May, has promised to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which allows members to withdraw. But the British High Court of Justice ruled in December that Parliament must first vote to invoke it”.

[24] Victor Li, The top legal stories of 2016: Do you have others?, ABA Journal, December 23, 2016:

Donald Trump’s U.S. presidential win: “If someone had told you one year ago that the 45th president of the United States would be a real estate tycoon and reality television host who broke decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax returns, got into Twitter wars with C-list celebrities, was caught on a hot mic saying that he likes to grope women, was widely disliked within his own party’s power structure and became the poster child for white nationalists, would you have believed it?

And yet here we are. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, winning a clear majority in the Electoral College despite losing in the popular vote.

Trump’s shocking victory promises to drastically alter the legal landscape in the coming years. Trump has promised to gut Dodd-Frank, repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, renegotiate free trade deals, and possibly deport millions of immigrants living here illegally—among other things”.

[25] Stephen Fussell, How Business Leaders Can Best Respond to the Rise of Populism: populism reflects worry about the economy and sagging faith in political institutions – insightful business leaders will respond by offering stability and purpose, Entrepreneur, September 19, 2016; Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017. Also see, Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016; Anand Giridharadas, When Technology Sets off a Populist Revolt, New York Times, August 29, 2016; ‘The risk is very high, and we need to pay very close attention to what’s happening in Europe’, Business Insider, December 30, 2016; Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016. For example, also see: overviews of the literature in Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Rightwing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994; Piero Ignazi, Extreme right parties in Western Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral, Eds., Right-Wing Populism in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013; Carlos de la Torre, Ed., The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press, 2015; Matt Golder, ‘Far Right Parties in Europe’, Annual Review of Political Science 19:477-97, 2016; Thomas Piketty, Capital, Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press, 2014; Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Classic works on the rise of populism, The Economist, December 3, 2016. Also see: – Pankaj Mishra, Welcome to the age of anger, The Guardian, December 8, 2016; Donna Twombly, Letter to the Editor: Those left behind by economy turn to populism, Portland Press Herald, November 20, 2016; Donna Twombly, Opinion: Want to understand Trump’s populist uprising? Just look at the rural Maine left behind, Bangor Daily News, November 16, 2016.

[26] Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017. [Originally published in The Conversation.com: Andrew Cumbers, New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit, and alt.right, The Conversation, January 12, 2017].

[27] Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016. For example, also see: overviews of the literature in Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Rightwing Populism in Western Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994; Piero Ignazi, Extreme right parties in Western Europe, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1995; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Ruth Wodak, Majid KhosraviNik and Brigitte Mral, Eds., Right-Wing Populism in Europe, London: Bloomsbury, 2013; Carlos de la Torre, Ed., The Promise and Perils of Populism: Global Perspectives, Lexington, KT: University of Kentucky Press, 2015; Matt Golder, ‘Far Right Parties in Europe’, Annual Review of Political Science 19:477-97, 2016; Thomas Piketty, Capital, Cambridge, MA: Bellnap Press, 2014; Jacob Hacker, The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997; Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011; Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016; Classic works on the rise of populism, The Economist, December 3, 2016. Also see: Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016:

“Populism’s electoral success is a function of voter anxiety. It appeals to stressed, dissatisfied and angry voters who have lost confidence in the political system. These alienated voters reach the conclusion that no conventional party or candidate is responsive to their problems. So they turn elsewhere.”

[28] The economic inequality perspective — emphasizes the consequences for electoral behavior arising from profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies. There is overwhelming evidence of powerful trends toward greater income and wealth inequality in the West, based on the rise of the knowledge economy, technological automation, and the collapse of manufacturing industry, global flows of labor, goods, peoples, and capital (especially the inflow of migrants and refugees), the erosion of organized labor, shrinking welfare safety-nets, and neo-liberal austerity policies. According to this view, rising economic insecurity and social deprivation among the left-behinds has fueled popular resentment of the political classes. This situation is believed to have made the less secure strata of society – low-waged unskilled workers, the long-term unemployed, households dependent on shrinking social benefits, residents of public housing, single-parent families, and poorer white populations living in inner-city areas with concentrations of immigrants– susceptible to the anti-establishment, nativist, and xenophobic scare-mongering exploited of populist movements, parties, and leaders, blaming ‘Them’ for stripping prosperity, job opportunities, and public services from ‘Us’: Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[29] The cultural backlash perspective — suggests that the surge in votes for populist parties can be explained not as a purely economic phenomenon but in large part as a reaction against progressive cultural change. This argument builds on the ‘silent revolution’ theory of value change, which holds that the unprecedentedly high levels of existential security experienced by the people of developed Western societies during the postwar decades brought an intergenerational shift toward post-materialist values, such as cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism, generating rising support for left-libertarian parties such as the Greens and other progressive movements advocating environmental protection, human rights, and gender equality. A large body of empirical evidence documents these developments, which first became evident in affluent societies during the early-1970s, when the postwar generation first surfaced into political relevance, bringing an era of student protest. This cultural shift has sometimes been depicted as an inexorable cultural escalator moving post-industrial societies steadily in a more progressive direction, as opportunities for college education have expanded to more and more sectors of the population and as younger cohorts have gradually replaced their parents and grandparents in the population. But it has been clear from the start that reactions to these developments triggered a counterrevolutionary retro backlash, especially among the older generation, white men, and less educated sectors, who sense decline and actively reject the rising tide of progressive values, resent the displacement of familiar traditional norms, and provide a pool of supporters potentially vulnerable to populist appeals. Sectors once culturally predominant in Western Europe may react angrily to the erosion of their privileges and status: Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[30] Anand Giridharadas, When Technology Sets off a Populist Revolt, New York Times, August 29, 2016.

[33] Akin Oyedele, Trump could be looking at the job market all wrong, Business Insider, January 8, 2017.

[34] Andrew Cumbers, Economically marginalized voters played a critical role in Trump’s rise, Brexit, and a shift to the far right in Europe, Business Insider, January 13, 2017. [Originally published in The Conversation.com: Andrew Cumbers, New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit, and alt.right, The Conversation, January 12, 2017].

[36] It is hard to find any good economic arguments for protectionism – whether in the U.S. under Trump when he takes office, the UK, or in Europe – it is the single most debunked economic fallacy of the last two centuries. Economists have known this at least since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Theory and experience tell us that imposing protectionism, for example imposing trade barriers through higher tariffs on imports, will spark a damaging and likely escalating global trade war, and worst case scenario: a new global recession. See: Amanda Billner, Trumponomics ‘Bad for World Economy’, 2016 Nobel Laureate Warns, Bloomberg, December 7, 2016; Stephen S. Roach, The Achilles’ Heel of Trumponomics, Project Syndicate.org, November 24, 2016; Hamish Macdonald, Trumponomics: What is Donald Trump’s economic vision?, ABC.net (Australia), March 7, 2016; Mark Trumbull, How would ‘Trumponomics’ change America? A lot, actually, Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2016; Lawrence Herman, Trump’s zero-sum worldview spells trouble for trade, Globe and Mail, January 2, 2017; Lars Christensen, The Trump-Yellen policy mix is the perfect excuse for Trump’s protectionism, Market Monetarist, November 18, 2016; Ben Shapiro, Trump Unleashes Garbage Trumponomics in Front of Garbage Wall, Daily Wire, June 28, 2016; John Cassidy, Coming to Terms with Trumponomics, The New Yorker, November 16, 2016; Alan S. Blinder, A Look Behind the Curtain of Trumponomics, Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2016; James Bacchus, Trump’s Challenge to the WTO: tariffs he promised and the retaliations that would ensue could unravel the global trading system, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017; Patrick Gillespie, Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We’ll respond ‘immediately’, CNN Money, January 14, 2017; Charles Riley, 8 reasons why starting a trade war with China is a bad idea, CNN Money, November 17, 2016; Winter Nie, Why America would lose a Trade War with China, Fortune, December 22, 2016; Bei Hu, China Would Outlast U.S. in Trade War, Billion-Dollar Fund says, Bloomberg, December 28, 2016; Greg Keenan, End of NAFTA would kill thousands of U.S. auto jobs, think tank says, Globe and Mail, January 12, 2017; John Ibbitson, Canada could end up caught in the crossfire of a Trump trade war, Globe and Mail, January 3, 2017; Spriha Srivastava, Trump’s three trade chiefs have ‘very peculiar ideas’, CNBC.com, January 6, 2017; David Taylor, China-US trade war the single biggest economic threat to Australia, ABC.news, January 11, 2017; Fergal O’Brien, Summers Says Markets Underestimating Risks of Trump Presidency, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Allan Smith, Larry Summers lambastes policy paper from top Trump advisors: ‘Economic equivalent of creationism’, Business Insider, January 3, 2016; Enda Curran, Trump Rhetoric Raises Specter of 1930s-Style Trade War With Asia, Bloomberg, January 6, 2017; Ian Talley, Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts could boost U.S. and Global Growth, says World Bank: Report warns that Trump tariff proposals could trigger protectionist retaliation, Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2017; Alex Fernandez Campbell, Trump’s Protectionist Economic Plan is Nothing New, Atlantic, January 9, 2017; Robert B. Zoellick, If Trump really knows the art of the deal, he’ll embrace free trade, Washington Post, January 5, 2017:

“A dealmaker who is an economic nationalist should not just blame the world and revert to costly protections of special interests. That’s the ‘Art of Bankruptcy.’ Instead, President Trump needs the ‘Art of the Deal’ to open markets, keep America competitive and leverage U.S. economic strength.”

[37] Annabel Hepworth, BCA’s Livingston to warn on ‘anti-business’ populism, The Australian, November 17, 2016; Katharine Murphy, Australia in 2016: the year leaders flailed as populism sailed, The Guardian (Australia), December 27, 2016; Karen Murphy, Comprehending Pauline is not the challenge. Engaging constructively with Hansonism is, The Guardian (Australia), September 13, 2016.

[38] ‘The risk is very high, and we need to pay very close attention to what’s happening in Europe’, Business Insider, December 30, 2016; Larry Elliot, Brexit is a rejection of globalisation: The EU has failed to protect its population from a global economic model that many believe is not working for them, The Guardian, June 26, 2016; Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016; Anti-Globalization Goes Global, Project Syndicate, January 6, 2017; Chris York, Prince Charles Warns of Rise of Populism in Radio 4’s Thought of the Day: All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s, The Huffington Post UK, December 22, 2016; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[39] ‘The risk is very high, and we need to pay very close attention to what’s happening in Europe’, Business Insider, December 30, 2016; Elena Holodny, CITI: Refugees are more likely to ‘break Europe’ than the Greek Crisis, Business Insider, January 19, 2016; Elena Holodny, 13 mind-blowing facts about Greece’s economy, Business Insider, June 24, 2015; Mark Gollom, Why trade deals like CETA have become a ‘whipping boy’ for anti-globalization forces, CBC, October 25, 2016; Larry Elliot, Brexit is a rejection of globalisation: The EU has failed to protect its population from a global economic model that many believe is not working for them, The Guardian, June 26, 2016; Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016; Anti-Globalization Goes Global, Project Syndicate, January 6, 2017; Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash, Harvard Kennedy School of Government, HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series, August 2016.

[40] Oscar Williams-Grut, Brexit and Trump are just the start – populism will strike Europe next, Business Insider, November 10, 2016. But also see: Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016; Jennifer Rudin, Will Trump drop populism like a bad habit?, Washington Post, December 27, 2016:

“Trump risks blowing his populist image … Whatever the merits of these individual measures, collectively they look like stereotypical Republican reverse-Robin Hood policies (take from the poor and give to the rich). Allowing Wall Street to dominate the new administration (in the person of so many Cabinet officials and by zeroing out the consumer protection board) would make Trump into the quintessential Big Business president, not the defender of the little guy.

Democrats may not be able to stop the train, but they can begin to restore their image as the party of the little guy by highlighting the very un-populist polices that will be coming down the pike. If Trump insists on serving up 1980s-vintage economic policy, Trump may lose the affection of his white working-class base, whose members actually believed his populist rhetoric. For a president starting out with an approval rating below 45 percent, that could be a serious blow — and the beginning of a Democratic comeback.”

Also see: John Loyd, For left-behinders, populists paint a picture of a better future, Financial Times, August 16, 2016; Conor Lynch, False hope for sale: Trump, Brexit and the irrational response to the very real threat of neoliberal policies, Salon, June 28, 2016.

[42] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016. Alana Semuels, How to Stop Short-Term Thinking at America’s Companies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016. For discussion of short and long term strategy, and discussion re purpose of organization and duty to stakeholders (shareholders and public/society), also see: American Prosperity Project (an initiative spearheaded by the Aspen Institute – aspeninstitute.org – to encourage companies and the nation to engage in more long-term thinking):

“The American Prosperity Project is a nonpartisan framework for long-term investment to support our families and communities and reinvigorate the economy to create jobs and prosperity. There is no viable model under which either business or government can or should shoulder the responsibility for long-term investment alone; both are required.

The time is right for a national conversation about long-term investment in infrastructure, basic science, education and training for workers who feel the brunt of globalization and technology. We need to focus on the critical levers for economic growth along with sources of revenue to help pay for it, as well as ways to overcome the short-term thinking currently baked into government policy and business protocols.

The ideas offered here have been developed under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in consultation with a non-partisan working group of experts in public policy formation, tax and regulation, business, and corporate law and governance. …”

[46] It is hard to find any good economic arguments for protectionism – whether in the U.S. under Trump when he takes office, the UK, or in Europe – it is the single most debunked economic fallacy of the last two centuries. Economists have known this at least since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Theory and experience tell us that imposing protectionism, for example imposing trade barriers through higher tariffs on imports, will spark a damaging and likely escalating global trade war, and worst case scenario: a new global recession. See: Amanda Billner, Trumponomics ‘Bad for World Economy’, 2016 Nobel Laureate Warns, Bloomberg, December 7, 2016; Stephen S. Roach, The Achilles’ Heel of Trumponomics, Project Syndicate.org, November 24, 2016; Hamish Macdonald, Trumponomics: What is Donald Trump’s economic vision?, ABC.net (Australia), March 7, 2016; Mark Trumbull, How would ‘Trumponomics’ change America? A lot, actually, Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2016; Lawrence Herman, Trump’s zero-sum worldview spells trouble for trade, Globe and Mail, January 2, 2017; Lars Christensen, The Trump-Yellen policy mix is the perfect excuse for Trump’s protectionism, Market Monetarist, November 18, 2016; Ben Shapiro, Trump Unleashes Garbage Trumponomics in Front of Garbage Wall, Daily Wire, June 28, 2016; John Cassidy, Coming to Terms with Trumponomics, The New Yorker, November 16, 2016; Alan S. Blinder, A Look Behind the Curtain of Trumponomics, Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2016; James Bacchus, Trump’s Challenge to the WTO: tariffs he promised and the retaliations that would ensue could unravel the global trading system, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017; Patrick Gillespie, Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We’ll respond ‘immediately’, CNN Money, January 14, 2017; Charles Riley, 8 reasons why starting a trade war with China is a bad idea, CNN Money, November 17, 2016; Winter Nie, Why America would lose a Trade War with China, Fortune, December 22, 2016; Bei Hu, China Would Outlast U.S. in Trade War, Billion-Dollar Fund says, Bloomberg, December 28, 2016; Greg Keenan, End of NAFTA would kill thousands of U.S. auto jobs, think tank says, Globe and Mail, January 12, 2017; John Ibbitson, Canada could end up caught in the crossfire of a Trump trade war, Globe and Mail, January 3, 2017; Spriha Srivastava, Trump’s three trade chiefs have ‘very peculiar ideas’, CNBC.com, January 6, 2017; David Taylor, China-US trade war the single biggest economic threat to Australia, ABC.news, January 11, 2017; Fergal O’Brien, Summers Says Markets Underestimating Risks of Trump Presidency, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Allan Smith, Larry Summers lambastes policy paper from top Trump advisors: ‘Economic equivalent of creationism’, Business Insider, January 3, 2016; Enda Curran, Trump Rhetoric Raises Specter of 1930s-Style Trade War With Asia, Bloomberg, January 6, 2017; Robert B. Zoellick, If Trump really knows the art of the deal, he’ll embrace free trade, Washington Post, January 5, 2017:

“A dealmaker who is an economic nationalist should not just blame the world and revert to costly protections of special interests. That’s the ‘Art of Bankruptcy.’ Instead, President Trump needs the ‘Art of the Deal’ to open markets, keep America competitive and leverage U.S. economic strength.”

[49] Stephen Fussell, How Business Leaders Can Best Respond to the Rise of Populism: populism reflects worry about the economy and sagging faith in political institutions – insightful business leaders will respond by offering stability and purpose, Entrepreneur, September 19, 2016.

[50] Joann S. Lumblin and John Simons, One Thing is Certain: 2017 Will be a Year of Uncertainty for CEOs, Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2016; Ari Kaplan, Reinventing Professionals: Where is the legal industry headed in 2017?, ABA Journal, December 23, 2016. (citing Tony Gomes, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Legal Compliance Officer, Citrix Systems).

[51] Company stakeholders: A stakeholder is a party that has an interest in a company, and can either affect or be affected by the business. The primary stakeholders in a typical corporation are its investors, employees and customers. However, the modern theory of the idea goes beyond this original notion to include additional stakeholders such as a community, government or trade association. [Investopedia.com and Wikipedia]

Primary Stakeholders – usually internal stakeholders, are those that engage in economic transactions with the business. (For example stockholders, customers, suppliers, creditors, and employees).

Secondary Stakeholders – usually external stakeholders, are those who – although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the business – are affected by or can affect its actions (for example the general public, government, communities, activist groups, business support groups, and the media).

[52] Pippa Norris, Its not just Trump. Authoritarian populism is rising across the West. Here’s why, Washington Post, March 11, 2016. Also see, for example: Cas Muddle, The Trump phenomenon and the European populist radical right, Washington Post, August 26, 2015; Peter Murphy, Populism Rising, Quadrant, May 25, 2016; Katharine Murphy, Australia in 2016: the year leaders flailed as populism sailed, The Guardian (Australia), December 27, 2016; Paul Krugman, Populism, Real and Phony, New York Times, December 23, 2016:

“Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. They control governments in Hungary and Poland, and will soon take power in America. And they’re organizing across borders: Austria’s Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has signed an agreement with Russia’s ruling party — and met with Donald Trump’s choice for national security adviser.”

“Over the past decade, a variety of forces and events has made the role of the General Counsel (GC) more prominent than ever. The market turmoil following the bursting of the internet bubble in early 2000, the ensuing corporate scandals, ever-growing litigiousness and, most recently, the issues of risk and liability raised by a worldwide economic crisis unparalleled for generations, together with the ongoing vulnerability of private and public finances have all contributed to a renewed focus on the chief steward of the legal and ethical behavior of a company. At the same time, globalization has compelled GCs to master difficult and complex matters of ever more stringent regulatory regimes and enforcement practices, local jurisdiction and political impact, taxes, capital markets, and many others, including the challenges of more diverse and unpredictable business situations and industry trends.”

[54] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016. Also see, for example: Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[55] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016; David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017.

[56] Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[57] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016.

[58] 2014 Global Risk Survey, Deloitte [www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/governance-risk-and-compliance/articles/reputation-at-risk.html]; Cindy Fornelli, Protecting that ‘Priceless Asset’ – Your Company’s Reputation, LinkedIn, January 3, 2017; Kim Harrison, Why a good corporate reputation is important to your organization, Cutting Edge PR.com; Robert Eccles, Scott Newquist, and Roland Schatz, Reputation and its Risks, Harvard Business Review, February 2007; Leon Bracey, The Importance of Business Reputation, Business in Focus Magazaine.com, January 4, 2017: “An American study indicates there are ten main components of organizational reputation used in reputation measurement systems:

Ethics: the organization behaves ethically, is admirable, is worthy of respect, and is trustworthy.

Employees/workplace: the organization has talented employees, treats its people well, and is an appealing workplace.

Financial performance: the organization is financially strong, has a record of profitability, and has growth prospects.

Leadership: the organization is a leader rather than a follower, and is innovative.

Management: the organization is well managed, has high quality management, and has a clear vision for the future.

Social responsibility: the organization recognizes social responsibilities, and supports good causes.

Customer focus: the organization cares about and is strongly committed to customers.

Quality: the organization offers high quality products and services.

Reliability: the organization stands behind its products and services, and provides consistent service.

Emotional appeal: it is an organization I feel good about, is kind, and is fun.

[59] Eric Sigurdson, Crisis Management and Corporate Wrongdoing: critical steps to crisis management in the 21st Century, Sigurdson Post, September 11, 2016. (note: Although the ‘structure’ to coordinate a response to a crisis should already be in place for the company – clear roles and responsibilities – the actual ‘strategy’ to be employed and implemented will depend upon the actual crisis that ultimately arises.)

[60] David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017.

[61] David R. Beatty, Are You Getting all you can from your Board of Directors, LinkedIn.com, January 17, 2017.

[62] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016; Jorg Thierfelder, The Role of the General Counsel with the Board of Directors, Egon Zehnder.com, 2017.

[63] Tom Monahan, Populism Unleashed: 5 Steps for Business Leaders to Shape a Healthy Society and Boost Performance, CEB Global, November 9, 2016. Also see: David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017.

[64] Adam Nagourney and Henry Fountain, California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t back Down to Trump, New York Times, December 26, 2016 – California is one of 50 states located in the United States. California Governor Brown:

called Mr. Trump’s election [as U.S. president] a setback for the climate movement, but predicted that it would be fleeting. ‘In a paradoxical way, it could speed up the efforts of leaders in the world to take climate change seriously,’ he said. ‘The shock of official congressional and presidential denial will reverberate through the world’.

has spearheaded the Under 2 MOU initiative, backed by a coalition of state, local and regional governments in 33 countries — more than 160 jurisdictions with a total population of more than 1 billion — that have agreed to deep emissions cuts to try to keep global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.”

[65] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016.

[68] Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[69] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016. Also see: Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016:

“The backlash against globalization is real and mounting in advanced economies. But it can be managed through policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization continue, that mitigates collateral damage to those who lose out and that makes losers more likely to eventually join the ranks of the winners.”

[70]Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg takes up challenge to tour US, BBC.com, January 3, 2016; Mark Prigg, Mark Zuckerberg reveals his 2017 challenge: Facebook founder will ‘visit and meet people in every US state’ as speculation rises he is planning a move into politics, Daily Mail, January 3, 2017.

[71] Steve R. Weisman, The Great Tradeoff: Confronting Moral Conflicts in the Era of Globalization, 2016; Steven Rattner, What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?, New York Times, January 26, 2016; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016.

[72] Jack Markell, Americans Need Jobs, Not Populism: Democrats should work together with business to build an economy that distributes its benefits more broadly, The Altantic, May 3, 2015.

“Here is the irony about the modern U.S. economy: It’s once again among the world’s strongest and getting stronger. Unemployment is down and the stock market is near record highs. But individual Americans don’t live in the aggregate and their relatively good fortune compared to other countries is of little comfort to many families across the country. Income inequality is growing worse. And when it comes to the distribution of wealth, ours is now the most unequal of all advanced economies.

And that represents perhaps the greatest challenge: Rising economic insecurity detracts from economic growth—which only compounds the problem caused by rising global competition and technology. People who are economically insecure don’t take entrepreneurial risks. And a huge number of Americans are economically insecure. Only 14 percent of Americans believe they are getting ahead. The rest feel like it’s harder to maintain a middle-class life. And only 39 percent believe their children will live better than they do.

It’s no surprise that people worry about their kids. By 2025, a significant majority of jobs are projected to require training beyond high school. Less than half of the American population has that today. 41 percent of students at four-year public colleges fail to complete their degree within six years. And 67 percent of students at community colleges fail to graduate within three years. Lots of debt coupled with no degree leads to economic insecurity.”

[73] Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016. Also see: Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016:

“The backlash against globalization is real and mounting in advanced economies. But it can be managed through policies that ensure that the benefits of globalization continue, that mitigates collateral damage to those who lose out and that makes losers more likely to eventually join the ranks of the winners.”

[74] See generally: Steven Rattner, What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?, New York Times, January 26, 2016; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; Archie B. Carroll, Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look, ResearchGate.net, June 2016 (“Primarily via ‘business case’ reasoning, CSR has been more quickly adopted as a beneficial practice both to companies and society”); Matteo Tonello, The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (corpgov.law.harvard.edu), June 26, 2011:

“The business case for corporate social responsibility can be made. While it is valuable for a company to engage in CSR for altruistic and ethical justifications, the highly competitive business world in which we live requires that, in allocating resources to socially responsible initiatives, firms continue to consider their own business needs.

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of CSR initiatives on firms as well as their stakeholders. Firms have a variety of reasons for being CSR-attentive. But beyond the many bottom-line benefits outlined here, businesses that adopt CSR practices also benefit our society at large.”

[75] Steven Rattner, What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?, New York Times, January 26, 2016.

[76] Ian Davis, Business and Society: The biggest contract – building social issues into strategy, big business can recast the debate about its role, The Economist, May 26, 2005.

[79]Universal basic incomes: Sighing for paradise to come – arguments for a state stipend payable to all citizens are being heard more widely, The Economist, June 4, 2016; Andrew Coyne, The basics of a guaranteed basic income, National Post, January 9, 2017; Jorge Valero, Universal basic income debate gains traction in the EU, EurActiv, September 21, 2016; Jon Henley, Finland trials basic income for unemployed: government hopes two year social experiment will cut red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment, The Guardian, January 3, 2017; Philip Oltermann, State handouts for all? Europe set to pilot universal basic incomes, The Guardian, June 2, 2016; Alex Himelfarb and Trish Hennessy, Basic income is coming to Ontario: now what?, Toronto Star, October 7, 2016; Matthew Wall, 2017 tech trends: ‘A major bank will fail’, BBC News, January 6, 2017; Bob Douglas, A universal basic income for all Australians: Australia should be joining the international movement to consider the practical feasibility of providing a universal obligation free income to all, Sydney Morning Herald, January 21, 2016:

“Britain’s Royal Society of Arts is a large, long-established social research body, which seeks to find innovative, practical solutions to today’s social challenges. In December 2015, the RSA released an important discussion paper based on 12 months of research, entitled “Creative citizen, creative state; the principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income”.

The 51-page report describes succinctly, the background to the idea of a government-provided, obligation-free universal basic income to all its citizens; its practicability and its feasibility. The authors believe it offers a response to the difficulties that face countries everywhere, as they struggle with increasing unemployment, inequality and the intrusiveness and unsustainability of the modern welfare state. …

The report draws attention to the fact that already there are some elements of a basic income policy operating in Alaska.”

[80] Nouriel Roubini, The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics, Huffington Post, August 23, 2016.

[81] Mark Hanrahan, Davos 2016: Experts Say Inequality is Key Threat to Global Economy, IbtTimes.com, January 21, 2016; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016:

“[W]e face a defining moment—and we must take decisive action to make globalization work—for everyone.

This will require pulling on all policy levers—monetary, fiscal, structural—to support demand, boost productivity, and reinvigorate trade. Investing in social safety nets, education, and retraining those affected by technological change are also key. Policymakers face a major challenge—and they cannot do it alone.

We need every creator of jobs and growth to step up. I am talking, of course, about business. …

Alongside stronger policies, the role of business is key. Enterprise not only benefits from greater inclusion, but is uniquely placed to support it—leading, employing, innovating.”

[82] Klaus Schwab, Five Leadership priorities for 2017, World Economic Forum, January 2, 2017; Laurent Baumel, How to Reinvigorate Social Democracy to Fight Populism in Europe, Right Wing Populism in Europe – How Do We Respond? (Ernst Hillebrand, ed.), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, May 2014; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; Anthony Painter, Honesty, Statecraft and Engagement: Three Remedies against Right Wing Populism in Europe, Right Wing Populism in Europe – How Do We Respond? (Ernst Hillebrand, ed.), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, May 2014.

“Toyota became the latest company to draw Trump’s Twitter attention on Thursday afternoon, with the president-elect threatening yet another border tax.

But even Trump’s tweet-first approach will become something that his administration’s partners and adversaries become accustomed to over time, according to Thooft.

“We’re going to have to adjust to what a Trump presidency looks like relative to an Obama presidency,” Thooft told BNN. “So far the evidence is that he’s a little quicker to respond in putting out tweets and things like that… Right now everyone’s kind of alarmed by it because it’s new and different, but ultimately people will kind of adjust to that.”

“Throughout your 30 years career you have seen many crisis. What company do you think has the best example of effective crisis management? Answer: Richard Branson, of course, in almost any situation. He brings a huge reservoir of trust, carefully built up over many years, to every situation. … I’m a regular visitor to the United States and I am loving every minute of the whole circus… but I’ve been trying for years to understand American politics and I still don’t.” – Donald Steel, expert on crisis communications, UK, Europe, Middle East and Asia Pacific

[107] Heather Long and Poppy Harlow, Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in ‘vote of confidence’ in Trump, CNN, January 3, 2017:

This is a major U-turn for Ford. Trump repeatedly slammed Ford on the campaign trail for shipping U.S. jobs to Mexico (a claim the company said was wrong). The president-elect has kept up the pressure. Just hours before the Ford announcement, Trump criticized GM (GM) for producing cars in Mexico. All of the big car manufacturers currently have some production in Mexico.

Last year, Ford announced it wouldinvest $1.6 billion in Mexico to transfer production of the Ford Focus from Michigan to Mexico to save costs. Now the Focus will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, and Ford will instead expand its plant in Michigan.

Trump threatened to slap a 35% tariff on Ford vehicles made in Mexico and sold in the U.S., although experts say it isnot possiblefor Trump do that to a single U.S. company.

The president-elect reiterated that threat again to GM Tuesday, tweeting, “Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!”

Ford’s CEO tried to walk a delicate line on how much Trump influenced this major change in the company’s plans. He praised Trump for his vows to cut taxes and scale back regulations on businesses, but stressed Ford’s decision was “done independently” of the president.

“This does make a heck of a lot of sense for business reasons. Political favor is an advantageous byproduct,” says Bernard Swiecki, senior automotive analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan.

[108] Editorial Board, Trump’s Trade Plan is a Looming Disaster, Bloomberg.com, January 17, 2017. Note: It is hard to find any good economic arguments for protectionism – whether in the U.S. under Trump when he takes office, the UK, or in Europe – it is the single most debunked economic fallacy of the last two centuries. Economists have known this at least since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Theory and experience tell us that imposing protectionism, for example imposing trade barriers through higher tariffs on imports, will spark a damaging and likely escalating global trade war, and worst case scenario: a new global recession. See: Amanda Billner, Trumponomics ‘Bad for World Economy’, 2016 Nobel Laureate Warns, Bloomberg, December 7, 2016; Stephen S. Roach, The Achilles’ Heel of Trumponomics, Project Syndicate.org, November 24, 2016; Hamish Macdonald, Trumponomics: What is Donald Trump’s economic vision?, ABC.net (Australia), March 7, 2016; Mark Trumbull, How would ‘Trumponomics’ change America? A lot, actually, Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2016; Lawrence Herman, Trump’s zero-sum worldview spells trouble for trade, Globe and Mail, January 2, 2017; Lars Christensen, The Trump-Yellen policy mix is the perfect excuse for Trump’s protectionism, Market Monetarist, November 18, 2016; Ben Shapiro, Trump Unleashes Garbage Trumponomics in Front of Garbage Wall, Daily Wire, June 28, 2016; John Cassidy, Coming to Terms with Trumponomics, The New Yorker, November 16, 2016; Alan S. Blinder, A Look Behind the Curtain of Trumponomics, Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2016; James Bacchus, Trump’s Challenge to the WTO: tariffs he promised and the retaliations that would ensue could unravel the global trading system, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017; Patrick Gillespie, Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We’ll respond ‘immediately’, CNN Money, January 14, 2017; Charles Riley, 8 reasons why starting a trade war with China is a bad idea, CNN Money, November 17, 2016; Winter Nie, Why America would lose a Trade War with China, Fortune, December 22, 2016; Bei Hu, China Would Outlast U.S. in Trade War, Billion-Dollar Fund says, Bloomberg, December 28, 2016; Greg Keenan, End of NAFTA would kill thousands of U.S. auto jobs, think tank says, Globe and Mail, January 12, 2017; John Ibbitson, Canada could end up caught in the crossfire of a Trump trade war, Globe and Mail, January 3, 2017; Spriha Srivastava, Trump’s three trade chiefs have ‘very peculiar ideas’, CNBC.com, January 6, 2017; David Taylor, China-US trade war the single biggest economic threat to Australia, ABC.news, January 11, 2017; Fergal O’Brien, Summers Says Markets Underestimating Risks of Trump Presidency, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Allan Smith, Larry Summers lambastes policy paper from top Trump advisors: ‘Economic equivalent of creationism’, Business Insider, January 3, 2016; Enda Curran, Trump Rhetoric Raises Specter of 1930s-Style Trade War With Asia, Bloomberg, January 6, 2017; Ian Talley, Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts could boost U.S. and Global Growth, says World Bank: Report warns that Trump tariff proposals could trigger protectionist retaliation, Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2017; Alex Fernandez Campbell, Trump’s Protectionist Economic Plan is Nothing New, Atlantic, January 9, 2017; Robert B. Zoellick, If Trump really knows the art of the deal, he’ll embrace free trade, Washington Post, January 5, 2017:

“A dealmaker who is an economic nationalist should not just blame the world and revert to costly protections of special interests. That’s the ‘Art of Bankruptcy.’ Instead, President Trump needs the ‘Art of the Deal’ to open markets, keep America competitive and leverage U.S. economic strength.”

[111] Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Triumph of Climate-Change Denial, The Atlantic, December 25, 2016:

“The entrenchment of climate-science denial is one of the ways the United States appears to be exceptional relative to the rest of the world. A comparative 2015 study of nine conservative political parties in countries such as Canada, Germany, and Spain concluded that “the U.S. Republican Party is an anomaly in denying anthropogenic climate change.” Meanwhile, Americans were least likely to agree that climate change is largely the result of human activity in a 2014 surveyof 20 countries, including China, India, Australia, and Great Britain.

Scientific reality does not seem to have escaped the distorting influence of political polarization in the United States. A paper published in Environment earlier this year suggests that as the Tea Party pushed the Republican Party further to the political right, it helped solidify skepticism of man-made climate change within the GOP. That happened as the Tea Party incorporated “anti-environmentalism and climate-change denial into its agenda,” the authors write, and subsequently became part of a broader “denial countermovement” made up of fossil-fuel companies as well as conservative think tanks and media outlets. …

Whether skepticism dissipates or intensifies may depend in part on the actions of the Trump administration over the next four years. If Trump makes climate science and policy a high-profile target, he might provoke a backlash among moderate Republicans who do believe global warming is a serious problem. But skepticism within the GOP could intensify if Trump’s administration publicly misrepresents climate science and dismisses efforts to combat global warming as an expensive waste of time. If that happens, Democrats and liberal activists will counterattack, a dynamic that might cause partisan attitudes to harden further. That could leave the political debate over global warming more fractured than ever”.

[112] Archie B. Carroll, Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look, ResearchGate.net, June 2016 (“Primarily via ‘business case’ reasoning, CSR has been more quickly adopted as a beneficial practice both to companies and society”); Matteo Tonello, The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (corpgov.law.harvard.edu), June 26, 2011:

“The business case for corporate social responsibility can be made. While it is valuable for a company to engage in CSR for altruistic and ethical justifications, the highly competitive business world in which we live requires that, in allocating resources to socially responsible initiatives, firms continue to consider their own business needs.

In the last decade, in particular, empirical research has brought evidence of the measurable payoff of CSR initiatives on firms as well as their stakeholders. Firms have a variety of reasons for being CSR-attentive. But beyond the many bottom-line benefits outlined here, businesses that adopt CSR practices also benefit our society at large.”

[113]How Tim Cook bought corporate social responsibility to Apple, MallenBaker.net, March 10, 2016; Julie Smyth, Canada’s top 50 socially responsible corporations: 2015 – ‘How these companies are getting ahead by putting communities, the environment and their employees at the top of their agendas, Macleans, June 8, 2015; 2015 Global CSR RepTrak 100: The Global CSR Reputation Ranking of the 100 Most Reputable Firms by the General Public across 15 Countries, Reputation Institute; Karsten Strauss, The Companies with the Best CSR Reputations in the World in 2016, Forbes, September 15, 2016; The 10 Companies with the Best CSR Reputations, Forbes; TD Named to 2015 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World, CSRWire.com, January 23, 2015; Richard Yerema and Kristina Leung, Recognized as One of Canada’s Top 100 employers 2017: TD Bank Group, Eluta.ca, Mediacorp Canada Inc, November 6, 2016; Jo Confino, Best practices in sustainability: Ford, Starbucks and more, The Guardian, April 30, 2014; Gregory Wallace, Brands that love LBGT the most, CNN.com, January 12, 2015 (“Over 100 major U.S. companies joined the campaign against DOMA, the law that barred the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages, before the Supreme Court struck it down in 2013”); Maegan Vazquez, These 35 Companies Just Told America Exactly What They Think About the SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling, Ijr.com [http://ijr.com/2015/06/354051-35-companies-just-told-america-exactly-think-scotus-gay-marriage-ruling/]; Bahar Gidwani, The 20 Most Socially Responsible Companies in California, Business Insider, January 16, 2013; RBC recognized as CGLCC Corporation of the Year, CGLCC Chamber of Commerce, December 13, 2016.

“The Under 2 MOU reflects a global commitment to tackle one of the most urging issues facing humanity today. As a leader in addressing climate change, Ontario is proud to stand with its global subnational partners in this effort to prevent catastrophic climate change by limiting global warming to less than 2°C and increase its actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution”. — Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Ontario

“A long term aim is needed—one that leads to a deep decarbonisation of the global economy while triggering the financial and technical support that will assist developing economies to engage, grow and develop. The Under 2 initiative supports this reality… It represents yet another positive signal towards a transformational Paris agreement”. — Christiana Figueres, Former Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

“These bold commitments by states and provinces to tackling climate change show that leaders at all levels of government around the world are taking ownership of this critical issue and leading by example. This agreement can help to accelerate climate action and inspire further local, national and international cooperation”. — Janos Pasztor, Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Change, United Nations

[119] Adam Nagourney and Henry Fountain, California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t back Down to Trump, New York Times, December 26, 2016.

[123] Gregory Krieg, It’s official: Clinton Swamps Trump in popular vote, CNN, December 22, 2016; Russell Berman, Republicans Grapple With the Risk of Overreach, Atlantic, January 3, 2017 – “[W]aiting for Republicans to overreach, to interpret a narrow presidential victory as an endorsement of conservative dogma and push forward with far-reaching changes to entitlements, the tax code, and consumer protections. That, they believe, would invite a public backlash”.

[124] Adam Nagourney and Henry Fountain, California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t back Down to Trump, New York Times, December 26, 2016.

[125] Adam Nagourney and Henry Fountain, California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t back Down to Trump, New York Times, December 26, 2016; Adam Nagourney, California Hires Eric Holder as Legal Bulwark Against Donald Trump, New York Times, January 4, 2017:

“Having the former attorney general of the United States brings us a lot of firepower in order to prepare to safeguard the values of the people of California … expected California … to defend itself from policies instituted in Washington – on issues including the environment, immigration and criminal justice. … Mr. Trump … surrounding himself with people who are a very clear and present danger to the economic prosperity of California”.

[126] Carol Clouse, Hundreds of companies are urging Trump to change his mind about climate change, The Guardian, January 10, 217; Ucilia Wany and Alison Moodie, What businesses want Trump to know about climate change, The Guardian, November 23, 2016.

[127] David Ignatius, Not even Trump can easily reverse our progress on climate change, Washington Post, January 16, 2017:

“There’s no question that we are moving to a lower-carbon economy,” [departing U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest] Moniz said in an interview in his Washington office. “What’s happening is largely a market-driven phenomenon. . . . There is no status quo ante.” …

Clean-energy technologies have become much cheaper and more efficient, Moniz noted, and the global market for them will lure U.S. companies. Utility and manufacturing industry executives, who have to plan investments on 30-year time horizons, aren’t likely to make long-term bets on high-carbon projects. …

As Moniz prepared to leave his post, the Energy Department released several studies that underline his argument that climate-change progress is being driven by the market rather than government. Smart government policies have encouraged and reinforced this evolution, but it now has a life of its own, the studies suggest. Some Energy Department statistics drive home this point. … Moniz contends that Trump and his supporters have wrongly argued that energy efficiency is a job killer, when the opposite is true. … The study predicts that energy-related jobs will grow 5 percent in 2017, with the fastest rate of 9 percent coming in the energy-efficiency sector.

What the Trump administration will do in energy and climate policy is a mystery, as with so many other areas. But my takeaway from Moniz is that in terms of the underlying trends, even a Trump administration wrecking ball at the Energy Department wouldn’t significantly alter the long-term move toward a cleaner and safer planet.”

[129] John Simons, CEOs Should Focus on Long Term, Study Says: Authors contend that switching from short-term gains to a long view improves profits and sales, Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2016; Bill Snyder, Pepsi CEO: Break with the Past, and Don’t play too Nice, Stanford Business.edu, May 31, 2016; Alana Semuels, How to Stop Short-Term Thinking at America’s Companies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016.

[130] Alana Semuels, How to Stop Short-Term Thinking at America’s Companies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016. For discussion of short and long term strategy, and discussion re purpose of organization and duty to stakeholders (shareholders and public/society), also see: David Beatty, How activist investors are transforming the role of public-company boards, McKinsey.com, January 2017; American Prosperity Project (an initiative spearheaded by the Aspen Institute – aspeninstitute.org – to encourage companies and the nation to engage in more long-term thinking):

“The American Prosperity Project is a nonpartisan framework for long-term investment to support our families and communities and reinvigorate the economy to create jobs and prosperity. There is no viable model under which either business or government can or should shoulder the responsibility for long-term investment alone; both are required.

The time is right for a national conversation about long-term investment in infrastructure, basic science, education and training for workers who feel the brunt of globalization and technology. We need to focus on the critical levers for economic growth along with sources of revenue to help pay for it, as well as ways to overcome the short-term thinking currently baked into government policy and business protocols.

The ideas offered here have been developed under the auspices of the Aspen Institute in consultation with a non-partisan working group of experts in public policy formation, tax and regulation, business, and corporate law and governance. …”

Alana Semuels, How to Stop Short-Term Thinking at America’s Companies, The Atlantic, December 30, 2016”

“It may be difficult to get other companies to follow. After all, few other company CEOs likely have a worldview similar to that of [Paul] Polman [CEO British-Dutch conglomerate Unilever], who iswell-known for his independent streak.

“Ultimately, the purpose of a company is to serve society, and in doing so shareholders will equally benefit over time,” he told me. Many heads of companies, by contrast, believe that they have a duty to serve shareholders, and hope that the company will benefit over time. This is a mistaken assumption—as Cornell Professor Lynn Stout has argued in her book, The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. CEOs think they have to put shareholders first, but they can put the interests of society first, if they choose. Still, many CEOs personally benefit when they act on behalf of shareholders; the way they are paid and evaluated depends on short-term success. It’s likely that their incentives will need to change before they act to stop short-termism on their own.”

[131] Steven Rattner, What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?, New York Times, January 26, 2016; Christine Lagarde, The Role of Business in Supporting a more Inclusive Global Economy, Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, New York, International Monetary Fund, October 10, 2016; Insight Report, The Global Risks Report 2017 (12th ed), World Economic Forum, January 2017; Dov Seldman, Why Companies Shouldn’t ‘Do’ Compliance, Forbes, May 4, 2012.

[132] Harvard Business Review, The ‘Business in Society’ Imperatives for CEOs, Global Advisors, December 20, 2016.

[138]Note: It is hard to find any good economic arguments for protectionism – whether in the U.S. under Trump when he takes office, the UK, or in Europe – it is the single most debunked economic fallacy of the last two centuries. Economists have known this at least since Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776. Theory and experience tell us that imposing protectionism, for example imposing trade barriers through higher tariffs on imports, will spark a damaging and likely escalating global trade war, and worst case scenario: a new global recession. See: Amanda Billner, Trumponomics ‘Bad for World Economy’, 2016 Nobel Laureate Warns, Bloomberg, December 7, 2016; Stephen S. Roach, The Achilles’ Heel of Trumponomics, Project Syndicate.org, November 24, 2016; Hamish Macdonald, Trumponomics: What is Donald Trump’s economic vision?, ABC.net (Australia), March 7, 2016; Mark Trumbull, How would ‘Trumponomics’ change America? A lot, actually, Christian Science Monitor, February 1, 2016; Lawrence Herman, Trump’s zero-sum worldview spells trouble for trade, Globe and Mail, January 2, 2017; Lars Christensen, The Trump-Yellen policy mix is the perfect excuse for Trump’s protectionism, Market Monetarist, November 18, 2016; Ben Shapiro, Trump Unleashes Garbage Trumponomics in Front of Garbage Wall, Daily Wire, June 28, 2016; John Cassidy, Coming to Terms with Trumponomics, The New Yorker, November 16, 2016; Alan S. Blinder, A Look Behind the Curtain of Trumponomics, Wall Street Journal, November 17, 2016; James Bacchus, Trump’s Challenge to the WTO: tariffs he promised and the retaliations that would ensue could unravel the global trading system, Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2017; Patrick Gillespie, Mexico warns Trump on tariffs: We’ll respond ‘immediately’, CNN Money, January 14, 2017; Charles Riley, 8 reasons why starting a trade war with China is a bad idea, CNN Money, November 17, 2016; Winter Nie, Why America would lose a Trade War with China, Fortune, December 22, 2016; Bei Hu, China Would Outlast U.S. in Trade War, Billion-Dollar Fund says, Bloomberg, December 28, 2016; Greg Keenan, End of NAFTA would kill thousands of U.S. auto jobs, think tank says, Globe and Mail, January 12, 2017; John Ibbitson, Canada could end up caught in the crossfire of a Trump trade war, Globe and Mail, January 3, 2017; Spriha Srivastava, Trump’s three trade chiefs have ‘very peculiar ideas’, CNBC.com, January 6, 2017; David Taylor, China-US trade war the single biggest economic threat to Australia, ABC.news, January 11, 2017; Fergal O’Brien, Summers Says Markets Underestimating Risks of Trump Presidency, Bloomberg, January 3, 2017; Allan Smith, Larry Summers lambastes policy paper from top Trump advisors: ‘Economic equivalent of creationism’, Business Insider, January 3, 2016; Enda Curran, Trump Rhetoric Raises Specter of 1930s-Style Trade War With Asia, Bloomberg, January 6, 2017; Ian Talley, Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts could boost U.S. and Global Growth, says World Bank: Report warns that Trump tariff proposals could trigger protectionist retaliation, Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2017; Alex Fernandez Campbell, Trump’s Protectionist Economic Plan is Nothing New, Atlantic, January 9, 2017; Robert B. Zoellick, If Trump really knows the art of the deal, he’ll embrace free trade, Washington Post, January 5, 2017:

“A dealmaker who is an economic nationalist should not just blame the world and revert to costly protections of special interests. That’s the ‘Art of Bankruptcy.’ Instead, President Trump needs the ‘Art of the Deal’ to open markets, keep America competitive and leverage U.S. economic strength.”

[139] Catrin Griffiths, You think law firms will escape populists? Think again, The Lawyer (UK), December 12, 2016 – Ms. Griffiths article notes that if lawyers in the UK accept that populism is a danger, the answer to the dangers of populism to the “rule of law” is not for the commercial legal profession to sit tight and hope the convulsions of 2016 fade, but to come up with a collective and nuanced response:

“At a febrile time when the tabloids are calling judges enemies of the people, not one City lawyer [100 largest law firms operating in UK with offices in central London] has spoken out in defence of the bench. The bar was furious, and it was vocal. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has asked the Lord Chancellor Liz Truss to deliver a public lecture on the rule of law. From the City firms there was an unedifying silence. In fact, I’d take it further – the silence was an absolute disgrace. The sublime experience of watching David Pannick QC in conversation with Supreme Court judges in the most important constitutional case of the century [Brexit and whether act of parliament required][139] was, in contrast, inspiring. How unusual it was to see a debate on screen that was not about cheap applause: reason, expertise, and the principles of law were all on show, and are all worth defending. ”

[141] Charles Riley, Chinese President Xi Jinping: No one will win a trade war, CNN, January 17, 2017. See endnote # 138.

[142] Joshua Macht, The leaders we deserve in the age of populism, Boston Globe, July 28, 2016.

[143] Stephen Fussell, How Business Leaders Can Best Respond to the Rise of Populism: populism reflects worry about the economy and sagging faith in political institutions – insightful business leaders will respond by offering stability and purpose, Entrepreneur, September 19, 2016.

The Sigurdson Post was developed for the legal profession, business, political decision makers, and the general public to engage and inform and provide a framework for reflection. Our goal is to provide a publication that rewards our readers for their time.

Thought of the Day

Loading Quotes...

This publication is designed to sensitize the reader to matters of general interest relating to recent developments in the law. Legal counsel should be consulted with regard to specific application of the information on a case-by-case basis. The contributors and editors assume no liability whatsoever in connection with the use of information contained in this publication.